High Court: Schools can screen speeches on religion

Or a guy screaming bible verses outside of a port authority.

spanky, what?

The problem I have isn't about religion.

Apparently your problem is constantly religion.

For starters, except for the variant of Zen, Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion.
Belief and informing about it is one thing, promoting a 'belief system' complete with unprovable matters of 'faith' is quite another. What many don't realize - including Xians apparently - is that the 'Story of Jesus' is a classic morality tale about the dangers of state interference with and promotion of 'forced compliance' with a belief system. That, basically, is stated as the reason the temple schemed to 'get rid of him'. And no...that is not the only time something like that happened : Aristotle comes to mind.
If you are 'prevented from practicing your religion in public' you have a case only so far as it doesn't interfere with others' freedom.

Jesus would be disappointed in her display. I'm disappointed that an older group of people can't handle a teenager well enough....this school failed on that account.

Look closely : it is the same right phrased differently.
I sympathize with those who say there is no right to propagandize ideas about unprovable things outside common perception. The idea exempting science has to do with proof - as does the difference between slander and exposure.
What happens is that religion can become a fearmongering agent of hate...while claiming to be the opposite.

Neither one is a pass to say whatever one wants too wherever one wants too. Common sense rules still apply like not yelling fire in a theater is an example. Separation of church and state is another example.

opit, i believe you need to refresh your knowledge of your rights, or fear losing them someday.

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are not the same right phrased differently. That's ridiculous to even hypothesize.

Let's say there's a theocratic government that forces me to practice Buddhism (chose a less controversial and less discussed religion), yet I am allowed to voice my disgust over this and the government. But when I try to practice my own religion, the government immediately has me imprisoned. I have freedom of speech, yet not freedom of religion.

Just making sure you realize they are clearly NOT the same right.

Well said.

Unless they worship at the alter of sports. Then it's ok. If she said that then you'd want her to have that right to say it. You wouldn't be posting the same thing you are now, that's for sure.

You act as if the school made the decision to put this particular student up at graduation.

they do a lot of "acting" really...like intolerant, and effusively over-sensitive. At least they feel smarter for all their stupidity. I'll give 'em that.

yeah because everyone knows only teachers should be spouting ignorance.

not only that but she has a right to be herself in school, even particularly at that "special" moment...one's 'own' graduation! Amen?! ;)~ I'll invoke some convenient feminism here to say if she'd want an abortion cuz it's her own body, why isn't her brain and her tongue also part of that same body which can do anything it feels like? Or is that my mistake to misapply the tolerance and licentious appetite for sex in the American imagination? heh...and I how narrative identity
is any less personal than sex I wonder, really. you know it. =)

If a kid makes religious references in a speech at school, how is that a reflection of the state endorsing any religious viewpoint or advocating any particular religion?

Because the speaker is a representative of the school and because this is a public activity in which the whole school is forced to attend.

What do you do on behalf of all the Jews in the audience? All the Catholics? All the Unitarians and Muslims and atheists and etc. etc. etc.

What do you do with people of other faiths Saladin? =D Here's an idea for you: tolerate them for the brief moment in life you "have" to. Casual consideration is rather cheap. Buy some before you lose yours too. And if you insist on bogus fool-hardy insult, please take consolation in that almost no one else is going to follow you for better, more trustworthy common sense.

...or Catholics, atheists, Buddhist, Hindus, scientologist, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses', Islamic, Unitarians, New Age, esotericism, mysticism, occultist, Wiccans, etc etc etc.

I completely agree with you.

Not that I am fully disagreeing with the sentiment of your argument but I find error with the approach. You are stating that this is a religious issue, that "Again the ugly hate for religion rears it's devil head on Current." However, his appears to be an issue that is more in the realm of the fist amendment right to free speech. This is a rights issue not a religion issue.

Also you state that this is something of a double standard then proceed to give an account of an event that happened in your mind. Stating a what if without the event happening is not the basis for a double standard. You are assuming how people would act.

I think that her main problem was that she changed the speech after it was vetted by her school. And isn't changing it after is was approved to ad something she knew would have been questionable just a bit deceitful? Or is it OK to deceive someone when religion and proselytization is involved? If someone has situational morals or ethics do they not have any morals or ethics at all?

J_Jammer, though I usually disagree with you, at least you usually have good points and debate facts and opinion rationally. However, this time is not one of those times.

Schools are no realms for freedom of speech. They just are not. However, the problem I'm having isn't what the school has done per say (excluding their need to withhold a diploma because they got outsmarted) it has to do with how people respond here about it.

Had someone gave a speech and mentioned drug use or did any number of other things that are questionable (that are not religious) people would be defending her actions. But because it was religious they have to bring down fire and brimstone.

J_Jammer, while there are people on Current who demonize religion in all instances, please do not assume that siding with the court on this issue makes one a religion hater. While I do not consider myself a religious person and I mostly identify as agnostic, the study of religion is my passion and I hold an MA in Comparative Religion. Religion holds an important place in both human history and modern culture. Those who condemn all forms of religion are on the same level as fundamentalist religious extremists. There needs to be a happy medium.

The bottom line here is that there is a separation of church and state, and public schools are state funded. It was inappropriate for the student to proselytize in her public high school graduation speech, and had she included that in the written copy of her speech that was submitted for approval, she would have been told it wasn’t allowed. This cannot be compared to a student who makes an inappropriate gesture or statement with no religious connotation and the resulting discipline or lack thereof.

Her speech sucks, most graduation speeches do, but that's not the point I care to make or discuss. The school shouldn't be able to hold back anyone's diploma period. It doesn't matter if they are offended or not. The student met qualifications prior. What they do during or after matters not.

Can you state with certainty that the school would have forever denied the student her diploma if she did not comply with their request for an apology?

Based on how things were going, they didn't seem like they were holding it just for fun.

Good point. Schools should not be able to withhold a diploma for any sort of violation. This just goes to show that public schools are more concerned with children following the rules than their academic achievement.

J Jammer, you talk about demonization of religion like it's a bad thing. If you ask me, religion is the great cancer of our society, and the world would be unimaginably better without it.

I agree with you that the current community's views on this subject are skewed because religion is involved, but we have seen time and again that religion is hardly something worth defending.

I do not think religion in general is in a very good position, but I'm not going to blame them just because they are an easy target. Fair is right and I like fair.

Or females dressing in tuxes.

How are they endorsed by the school?

If it was a private school it would be okay. She was able to say whatever she wanted--granted as long as the principle and other teachers were okay with what she written in her script like any reasonable teacher.

Public school--not so much since the school was funded by public money kind of how certain people in this country don't want to use public money to fund abortions because it's infringing on the individuals who are opposed to abortion.

The same people who are of a different faith or no faith have a right to question the content of what their local public school is teaching and the right to disagree with other's who are advertising a specific faith or disregard their faith.

And since religion and state is suppose to be separate, the public school had a right to alter the speech due to the young woman's infringement of her classmates diverse religious statuses. It's as simple as that.

It is weird you say that. Can you substantiate that with any evidence of students being censored in an open forum on a campus?

I remember feeling free to express my opinions to teachers, students and faculty who did or didn't agree with me. Especially in the classroom.

You don't make any sense as your assertion never materialized in my experience.

I am waiting for your response, but then again, I could just be wasting my breath like last time. Do you plan on responding to my RE to your post on the MIT study about healthcare reform?

The evidence is mounting that you, sir, are a trolly trolly trolly.

Credit,

I am an old man. I do not get to respond as often as I would like on this site. WVU and CU have areas cordoned off for free speech. That makes it apparent that free speech is not welcome on campus, except in those areas.

The fact that that does not jibe with your own experience in no way invalidates my claims. Why personalize the debate?

Sorry for the graphic I don't know how to get it out.

It's interesting that your interpretation of "free speech zone" is that of one where free speech is only allowed in those places. What is meant by such zones is that free speech is encouraged and debate open wide in these zones. That doesn't mean "no free speech outside of this area."

In fact I remember these places where we had preachers and other types of screamers in these zones. Sometimes the debate would get so thick as to border on violent. Just like an open forum can get.

In any case, I'll check out the articles you referred to and get back to you.

I go to a community college samthesixth and everyone is allowed to voice their opinions, in fact, its encouraged. There are religious clubs, political/philosophical clubs and social clubs. We have plenty of freedom on campus.

samthesixth...hit edit on your post, and at the bottom of the page you will see a little square that has the graphic framed in it. If you use the arrow buttons, you should be able to choose no graphic, and that ought to fix it.

Ok, I read the article.

It would appear that free speech is a universal right that is agreed upon and embraced by both, the left and the right of this country.

Every single example in the article of an administration quelling free speech for whatever reason, the people on campus, from all sides of every issue, fought it bitterly.

Every single case showed that the institutions are able to self regulate as a whole and that free speech was NOT able to be quelled because of an administrative mandate.

Why, then, do you assert that "most campuses" don't embrace free speech?

If anything, your article overwhelmingly proves that the young generation values free speech and exchanges of ideas ESPECIALLY on campus and will fight hard to defend it. You ought to be proud!

You have no concept of free speech.
The event was school sponsored.
>>>Free speech rights do not apply to anyone in Public School.

It terrifies me that children in this country are being raised not to "Live and Let Live" but to "Live and Tell others that their way of life is wrong and yours is correct."

yes your right there are bhudists who highly excelled and got there diploma and kept moving the jewish students also rasta children the children of islam the children of athiests also children with 2 religions in thier upbringing wont disturb graduating services because they clearly see that they are all there that thier beliefs didnt put them on a higher pedastal than the rest and they remembered thier social sudies class america is for everyone no matter what religion creed or sex.

Yeah this is as bad as if a teacher would teach her students political songs about a say president or some political figure. You never see anything like that out of the left.

This is about the separation of church and state, not bipartisan politics. Focus, man!

it's not even about law, it's about hypercritical self-serving legalism. nothing more. There was harm to government or religion here. Just a few aholes, with personal problems claiming atheism as your state-sponsored religion when they love to hate God really. That's their religion of legalism...however it best excludes you people of more decent faith.

Side against religion whenever possible.

Check.